is that which subsists by itself, or that which exists,” or made other such statements. They challenged the arguments of those who denied that He is a body in lengthy discussions that this answer cannot accommodate.

Some of these people then said, “He is a body like other bodies,” while others ascribed to Him characteristics peculiar to created beings. Abhorrent statements have been reported from each of the two groups.

Then Abū Muhammad ibn Kullāb appeared, and he and his followers said:

“He possesses attributes, but these attributes are not accidents, for they are eternal and enduring: they neither arise nor pass away. However, He is not described as performing acts that subsist in Him, such as movements, because these arise and pass away.”

Ibn Karrām and his followers said:

“Rather, He possesses attributes, even if they are called accidents, and He performs acts that subsist in Him, even if they come into being.”

When they were told, “This entails His being a body,” [they replied: “Yes, He is a body like other bodies.”] (*) They maintained that this is not invariably impossible; what is impossible is for Him to resemble created beings with respect to what is necessary, possible, or impossible. Some of them said, “He used the term ‘body,’ but did not intend its meaning.” These speculative theologians engaged in lengthy debates, which have been treated exhaustively elsewhere.

As for the early generations and the imams, they did not join any faction in its innovated negations or affirmations. Rather, they held firmly to the Book and the Sunnah, regarding this as consonant with clear reason. They therefore regarded every expression concerning His names and attributes found in the Book and the Sunnah as true and obligatory to believe in, even if the reality of its meaning is not known. As for any expression introduced by people, which some affirm and others deny, we are not obliged to affirm or deny it without qualification until we understand what the speaker intends. If